[mythtv-users] OT Any interest in HDMI --> IP TV x264 encoder boxes?

[Jerome Yuzyk]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:40:01 AM Another Sillyname wrote:
> @Gary
> 
> Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but making statements
> suggesting embargoed at import without supportable facts is
> irresponsible.
> 
> Or are you suggesting that Amazon are breaking the law?
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/TBS%C2%AE2216-Encoder-Broadcast-Teaching-Conference/dp/B01AU7RHRQ
> 
> Had you asked simply for it to be moved off the list I'd have acceded
> and politely, in future please don't make implied threats such as
> members email addresses are going to be captured and the copyright
> swat teams are likely to be kicking in their front doors, it's
> unbecoming.
> 
> I'll set up an off list email address tomorrow and allow people that
> want to pursue this to do so there.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Tony

Well, but... you amplified his reasonable sentiment, a sentiment that has appeared more than many times in the decade that I've been on this list, into unnecessary jackboot hyperbole. Maybe provoked a little, I'll grant you that.

But, I was surprised your thread went as long as it did without any comment, because these devices do circumvent recognized laws/agreements even if you don't like them, and advertising them in any way on this list is just on the wrong side of a thin line. I believe there's wording on the Wiki or somewhere to this effect. There's a sentence in the List_etiquette part of the wiki.

There's no moderator on this list to say "Shhh... go over there" so Gary finally said it, having some non-trivial credibility here in words and deeds, at least with me. 

And maybe, just maybe, he didn't read it until today because he was on a holiday - it's that time of year around these North American parts. Or any number of other reasonable reasons.


> On 15 August 2016 at 20:01, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Brian J. Murrell <brian at interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:
> >
> > <opinion>
> >
> >> How are these not considered "HDCP stripper"s along with the pitfalls
> >> of HDCP strippers?
> >
> > They most likely are, and if so, could be embargoed
> > at import, but in any case, all those who have chosen
> > to have publicly responded to the query now have
> > their name and email available to anyone who wishes
> > to pursue future actions.
> >
> > And, of course, export by Tony for sale to US
> > customers could result in other interesting events
> > in the country of origin ("commercial" activities tend
> > to get more attention than the one-offs).
> >
> >> Surely these must violate the DMCA in the US, no?
> >
> > If they strip, they do.
> >
> >> Don't HDCP strippers eventually get their keys removed from HDCP
> >> compliant devices rendering them unable to do the HDMI handshake?
> >
> > Sometimes yes, sometimes no, it depends on the
> > details (the details are documented elsewhere).
> >
> >
> >
> > In any case, I would ask everyone if they wish that
> > the MythTV community be known as marketplace
> > for devices that violate DMCA (in at least the
> > country that this list is hosted in).
> >
> > If you wish the community to continue as it is, as
> > an open forum of people who are interested in
> > recording content that is legal in their locations, I
> > would recommend this entire discussion move
> > somewhere else.
> >
> > </opinion>

-- 
A little of Jerome's MythTV World: http://mythtv.bss.ab.ca